23 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-24-21

  1. I’m sure those who called folks conspiracy nuts over this will be apologizing any minute now, because they’re clearly wrong. Still.

    Yep. Any minute now…..

    “Scientist: Deleted data suggests early viral samples in Wuhan differed from samples linked to animal market”


    “I need to tread carefully here because this study is highly technical, obviously above my pay grade, and was written by someone who’s not drawing firm conclusions about the virus’s origins based on his findings. But the basic conclusion is fascinating and the author, Jesse Bloom, believes his approach is fertile ground for learning more about where the virus might have come from.

    Bloom went looking for genome sequences from early samples of the virus in Wuhan. He dug through the NIH database and found something — only to discover the data curiously missing when he tried to download it. That’s not necessarily NIH’s fault, he made clear in a Twitter thread last night. Sometimes the people who provided the data will email the agency and request deletion for whatever reason. Undaunted, Bloom went looking online to see if he could recover the missing data in an archive somewhere. And he did, finding data for 34 samples from Google Cloud that allowed him to partially reconstruct the genomes of the virus from those samples.

    And when he did, what he found surprised him. Normally, says Bloom, we’d expect the earliest samples of SARS-CoV-2 to most closely resemble whichever bat virus it originated from. As the virus spreads among the human population it’ll inevitably mutate little by little, making it less like the “progenitor” virus that infected patient zero. If the virus really did come from the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan then we should expect that samples taken from the market to be the most bat-like and then, as people became infected around town, the samples taken from them to look progressively less bat-like.

    That’s not what the samples show, says Bloom.”

    “Bloom put it this way in the abstract of his study: “Phylogenetic analysis of these sequences in the context of carefully annotated existing data suggests that the Huanan Seafood Market sequences that are the focus of the joint WHO-China report are not fully representative of the viruses in Wuhan early in the epidemic. Instead, the progenitor of known SARS-CoV-2 sequences likely contained three mutations relative to the market viruses that made it more similar to SARS-CoV-2’s bat coronavirus relatives.” He’s careful not to say that that implies a lab leak, but if I’m understanding his results correctly then they must be a point in favor of a lab leak, no? If the viral samples linked to the market are less similar to bat viruses than the samples taken from people not linked to the market then logically it should be less likely that the virus made the jump from animals to humans at the market.

    In theory, I guess, the “progenitor” virus could have jumped from an animal to a human naturally at some other spot in Wuhan and then mutated a bit before arriving somehow at the market. But it’d be awfully strange for a bat virus to make the journey across China to a city that doesn’t have bats and then leap to humans in the wild — but not at the most logical place in the wild for that leap to be made. Which leaves us to consider the logical alternative: Did the “progenitor” virus infect someone at the Wuhan Institute of Virology instead?

    Would that explain why it looked less like a bat virus when it finally ended up at the seafood market, because it had already passed through a number of people and mutated in a divergent way?”

    As I say, this is above my pay grade. This part of Bloom’s study is clear, though:

    The fact that such an informative data set was deleted has implications beyond those gleaned directly from the recovered sequences. Samples from early outpatients in Wuhan are a gold mine for anyone seeking to understand spread of the virus. Even my analysis of the partial sequences is revealing, and it clearly would have been more scientifically informative to fully sequence the samples rather than surreptitiously delete the partial sequences. There is no plausible scientific reason for the deletion: the sequences are perfectly concordant with the samples described in Wang et al. (2020a,b), there are no corrections to the paper, the paper states human subjects approval was obtained, and the sequencing shows no evidence of plasmid or sample-to-sample contamination. It therefore seems likely the sequences were deleted to obscure their existence. Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples (Pingui 2020) and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19 (China CDC 2020; Kang et al. 2020a), this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to trace early spread of the epidemic.”


  2. Here’s some good news.

    Now make sure Fauci and the rest of the compromised “experts” are kept away too.

    “Scientist Connected to Wuhan Lab Recused from UN Commission Investigating COVID”


    “Last week, we reported that Senator Rand Paul demanded that those involved in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s coronavirus ‘gain of function’ research not participate in any further investigations.

    Here’s the problem. The WHO investigated this the first time, we suggested three people to send to China. They rejected all three and they accepted a guy named Peter Daszak who was the one that funded the lab. So you can’t have the people—like Anthony Fauci or Peter Daszak—who are part of the funding mechanism to send these funds to Wuhan lab.

    You can’t have them investigating themselves.

    It appears Sen. Paul will receive his wish. Wuhan-connected scientist Daszak has been recused from a UN Commission investigating COVID.

    Daszak, 55, president of the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, was one of 28 experts from around the world asked to analyze how best to respond to the pandemic.

    The panel comprised leading global figures in public health, economics, philanthropy, diplomacy and politics.

    It is organized by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which, according to its website, ‘operates under the auspices of the United Nations to mobilize scientific and technical expertise in support of the Sustainable Development Goals.’

    On Monday, his profile was updated to include the note: ‘recused from Commission work on the origins of the pandemic’.

    Earlier this year, I noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) commission’s first report on the coronavirus origin read like Chinese propaganda. One of the reasons could have been Daszak’s presence on the investigative team.

    Dr. Peter Daszak, the only U.S. citizen on the WHO team investigating the origins of the virus, has deep ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and went so far as to organize a PR campaign in the early months of 2020 to portray the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy.”

    Daszak said in a recent “60 Minutes” interview that officials with China’s ministry of foreign affairs kept a close eye on the WHO team’s meetings with scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak later said there was a “limit to what you can do and we went right up to that limit.”
    Further, the Wuhan Institute of Virology deleted public databases that had information on at least 16,000 virus samples in September of 2019, just three months before the first cases of COVID-19 were reported. The WHO did not request to review the data as part of their investigation because Daszak personally vouched for it.

    Most famously, Daszak was in charge of organizing the infamous Lancet article used to assert the coronavirus was from a natural source and deem lab-leak proposals as conspiracy theories. He arranged for over 20 scientists to sign the document.”


    Yes, the same Lancet article we now know was politicized BS.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Women Want to Know Why Men Don’t Want to Marry Anymore…Allow Me”

    It’s all your fault. 🙂


    “I feel like I can’t get on TikTok without seeing at least two or three videos of women outwardly wondering why men seem to be resistant to the idea of marriage. They question why men seem to be pulling away and not engaging with them on a deeper level, at least not the kind experienced by their parents. Especially not their grandparents.

    It’s clear that these young women yearn for that kind of stability, and it’s clear that men are increasingly less willing to provide it. Indeed, the numbers check out. Marriage is definitely on the decline. But before women start asking where all the good men have gone, perhaps they should look at themselves first.

    I know. Women aren’t typically used to hearing that it’s their fault. To be sure, you don’t shoulder all of the blame, but in this case, you bear a lot of it.

    Not long ago, I wrote about how men are getting tired of the “hyper-sexualized woman” where I laid down a very brutal truth:

    Society doesn’t encourage women to be good partners, they’re encouraged to be consumers of what their partner produces. Sadly, these same women are being encouraged to go out and get high-paying positions and are very likely to succeed thanks to the current culture, and very often make more money than their male partners. Yet still, the male is still expected to make more for the family.

    It doesn’t just stop at the societal level either. Even in modern families, men are taught how to treat a woman, provide for her, and work hard to keep her happy. Women aren’t taught how to treat a man or how to make him happy; they’re strictly taught what to expect from a man.

    This, combined with modern feminist philosophy that encourages women to do away with traditional ideas, has produced an entire swath of useless women who value shallow sexuality over familial contribution and homemaking skills. They enter into marriages where they contribute very little and expect quite a lot, and these marriages eventually end.

    The sad truth is that many young women nowadays don’t know how to be in a marriage. As I said above, they’re not taught how to treat a man, but what to expect from him. Meanwhile, they’re flat-out dissuaded from providing anything but their presence to the partnership. They believe that offering their love to the man is sufficient and that men should just be grateful to have them. The idea that women suddenly make a man happier by their presence is a storybook sentiment.

    Still, more emphasis is put on being fierce in a “yas, slay queen! You’re a goddess and you deserve to be treated like one!” kind of world.

    So they offer nothing and expect everything. They’re useless within the bounds of their own relationships with the only thing they bring to the table is what’s in between their legs, and even that’s something that can’t be taken on a whim, and even then, the value of that fades over time.

    What doesn’t help — and what often isn’t discussed enough — is that women take an emotional toll on men. Men are simple creatures who tend to know what we want when we want it. We don’t lend too much time to analyzing our emotions. We’re more likely to spend time thinking about how fast a gerbil could run if we gave it horse legs than trying to connect with ourselves on an emotional level. We don’t really have that need. Hell, if we need to, we can hop into our mind’s “nothing box” and give it all a break.

    Women can’t do that. Thanks to the design of the female brain, women have trouble having a thought without attaching an emotion to it. They’re more likely to feel their thoughts than men are, and what’s more, they’re more likely to be expressive about it. In a relationship, women want to express these emotions to their male partners, which is typically fine. Expressing feelings both positive and negative in a trusting and steady environment is good communication.

    But there’s a hitch.

    In today’s society, emotion is increasingly valued over logistical thinking. Especially for women, the pitfalls are numerous. “Your truth” is pushed over THE truth. Girls are more likely to get a lesson on how to deal with and express emotion from popularly unstable figures like Taylor Swift than they are from people who actually deal in this subject like Jordan Peterson. On top of that, they live in a society where the emotions and feelings of men are devalued to a point of ridicule.

    In fact, this problem has gotten so bad that men’s suicide rates have steadily risen over the course of the past decade and now makeup three-quarters of all suicides that happen.

    Along the lines of never learning how to treat a man, women are never taught how to value a man’s emotions unless they pertain positively to her. He must prove every day how much he values her for just existing. She expects this but is taught by our society to not reciprocate unless he earns it.

    Men feel this weight, and the thing that would give them strength is withheld. Men suffer attempting to emotionally support the partner who has no interest in uplifting him in return. It’s a lonely existence in a relationship for two, making it, in truth, a relationship for one…her. What makes matters worse is that women are confused by their men’s lack of emotions. They were never taught how we think, much less appreciate it.”


    Yes, I’m ducking…….


  4. I don’t think that word means what they think it means….

    “Psaki: WH has ‘Highest Ethical Standards’ Despite Many Admin Family Hires

    Biden only promised members of *his* family would not have jobs in his administration. It does not apply to those he has hired.”


    “Remember when the left exploded when former President Donald Trump brought on his children and son-in-law Jared Kushner? He had no ethics! No one hires family!

    Biden promised in January: “No one in our family and extended family is going to be involved in any government undertaking or foreign policy. And nobody has an office in this place.”

    Ah, words are powerful because Biden only addressed his family. The Biden family.

    I guess ethics only applies to the president?

    The topic came up after The Washington Post detailed all the jobs taken up by family members and other relatives of aides in President Joe Biden’s administration.

    CBS reporter Nancy Cordes asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki about the WaPo story, specifically about any “safeguards the administration has in place to make sure that the children of top officials don’t get preferential treatment in hiring.”

    Psaki answered:

    Well, let me say first that we have the highest ethical standard of any administration in history. A number of ethics officials have conveyed that and we are proud of that. We have also staffed up at an unprecedented pace and this is the most diverse administration in American history. So, we certainly expect that everyone will abide by those high ethics standards. That applies in how we operate, it also applies how hiring is done.”

    “The WaPo article concentrated on Biden counselor Steve Ricchetti, whose son J.J. Ricchetti landed a job at the Treasury Department.

    Shannon Richetti, Steve’s daughter, works as the associate director of the White House social secretary.

    Daniel Richetti, another son of Steve, landed the job of senior advisor in the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security office.

    My goodness, there are so many more:

    Sarah Donilon, daughter of Cathy Russell, the director of presidential personnel in the White House, serves on the White House National Security Council.

    Mike Donilon, Sarah’s uncle, is a Biden senior adviser.

    Psaki’s sister, Stephanie, is a senior adviser at the Health and Human Services Department.

    White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain’s wife Monica Medina is nominated to serve as the assistant secretary of state focused on oceans and the environment.

    National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s wife Maggie Goodlander is counsel to Attorney
    General Merrick Garland. (She clerked for him when he worked as an appellate judge.)

    Sullivan’s brother Tom Sullivan works as a State Department official.

    Tom’s wife is an official at HHS.”


  5. So Biden’s out there yesterday threatening gun owners with F-17’s and nukes, but the truth is our govt can’t even handle some GrandMa’s who got a little rowdy after the FBI organized an “insurrection” and the capital police let them in.

    What a joke these clowns are.


    So were they guilty of insurrection, treason, anything?

    Ah yes…. the crime of “parading”…..


  6. Openly mock them.

    It’s the only way they’ll learn.



  7. Move along…..

    Nothing to see here….

    “‘No business doing that’: Wis. official says Zuckerberg-funded group seized control of 2020 election

    Brown County clerk Sandy Juno says private money displaced career election experts, may have violated state law.”


    “he now-retired elections clerk in a key Wisconsin county says political activists working for a group funded by Mark Zuckerberg money seized control of the November elections in Green Bay and other cities, sidelining career experts and making last-minute changes that may have violated state law.

    “They had no business doing that,” ex-Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno told Just the News, recounting how funding from the Zuckerberg-backed Center for Tech and Civic Life injected chaos and unnecessary changes to how ballots were counted in Green Bay in November.

    Juno, a Republican who helped administer her county’s elections for 22 years, also called on policymakers to ban future grant money going from rich donors to local election referees because of the potential for corrupt influence.

    “We need to be really on top of this, because if this is how elections are going to go, we won’t have election integrity,” Juno warned.

    Juno told Just the News editor-in-chief John Solomon on Tuesday night’s “Securing our Elections: Protecting Your Vote” special on Real America’s Voice that election management in Green Bay was turned on its head last year after a massive infusion of cash from CTCL.

    The group poured millions of dollars into multiple key Wisconsin Democratic strongholds in the months leading up to last year’s presidential race, ostensibly in an effort to shore up voting systems and infrastructure amid the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. The organization was ultimately funded with more than a third of a billion dollars by Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan; that money was funneled to additional election funding efforts across the country.

    Juno claimed that following the infusion of the CTCL cash into Green Bay “the mayor’s office and chief of staff began to take over election functions.”

    “And that is not something under state statutes they have the authority to do,” she said, “because under Wisconsin law, municipal clerks, the county clerk and the Wisconsin Elections Commission are the individuals charged with running elections.”

    Juno said the COVID-19 pandemic had already thrown the year into chaos prior to CTCL’s involvement in Wisconsin’s elections.

    “As we got closer to the November election,” she said, “we found out that this outside group had come in and was basically trying to redo our forms and documents that we use statewide. And these people were from out of state and had no business doing that.”

    “So they were beginning to get involved with things that they didn’t have the expertise,” she continued. “They were working primarily with our five major Democratic base cities. So they were breaking the consistency of documents and processes and procedures used statewide.”

    Neither CTCL nor the Green Bay mayor’s office immediately responded to requests for comment on Tuesday evening. Emails revealed earlier this year showed efforts by CTCL and other groups to, in part, redesign ballot instructions and other election documents in multiple cities around the state, including Green Bay.”


    Gee, I wonder why….. 🙄

    Liked by 1 person

  8. And……

    More openly mocking.




  9. ———-





  10. The hospitals that are trying to mandate the experimental gene therapy should be sued endlessly.


    “The president of the largest union of health care workers in the United States says the organization will fight against companies requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for employees.

    George Gresham, president of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East—which describes itself as the largest health care union in the country—said hospital systems don’t have the right to mandate vaccines for employees. The union, which is based in New York, also represents hundreds of thousands of nurses and caregivers in New Jersey, Florida, Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts.”


  11. AJ, your 8:11, I hope your wife and daughter aren’t like that. The women on this blog aren’t like that, so rather than “ducking” as though you’ve thrown a grenade at all of us, how about if, if you want to post it, you post it in a way that isn’t intended simply to insult a whole sex?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I’m not sure about hospitals, but I do know that – at least here in Connecticut – nursing home staffs are required to have a flu vaccine each year. So it seems that a requirement for a Covid vaccine is not an out-of-the-ordinary thing.


  13. If you deal with the public’s health and the public feels safer if you have had a vaccine, it seems a reasonable enough requirement. When I was a foster parent (a “job” that cost a whole lot more money than it ever brought in) I was required to take CPR training, training to use medications properly (even though I wasn’t approved for medically fragile children), and more, and to have a physical and some medical screenings I would not normally have had. Parents who give birth to children don’t have to go through any of that, but they figured that if I was going to be entrusted with other people’s children, they were going to cover their bases.

    As we’ve said about plenty of other things, if you don’t like it; you can always get another job instead. It’s hardly an immoral or overly onerous requirement.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Big difference between a flu shot and an experimental shot. We are not supposed to be forced to choose between our jobs and participating in an experiment.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Elsewhere, I read that they are not considered experimental after all, because they have undergone all the safety trials that other vaccines and medicines go through. They are considered “emergency use” because the companies making them have not yet gone through the FDA application process, which is time-consuming.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. To clarify: They may still sometimes be referred to as experimental, but have actually gone through and passed all the trials.


  17. Mumsee, I’m not a big fan of requiring any shots. I don’t get the flu shot, and I wouldn’t want to be required to get the flu shot. However, just as foster parents and teachers have some demands put on them that aren’t put on the general public, so do police officers and nurses.

    Forcing nurses to violate their conscience by helping with an abortion is immoral. Requiring nurses to take specific health precautions such as regular TB tests or specific shots is part of the job.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Daughter is hoping it does not become a requirement in her hospital. They have seen too many vaccination issues. Obviously they have also seen the darkest side of covid as well. That is why I call it experimental. They can’t know how it acts in a year’s time if they have not studied it for over a year.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. In 1976, the swine flu vax, given to 45M people, was halted after 53 deaths were reported – it was considered too risky.

    Now, in 2021, more than 172M have received the experimental gene therapy, with well over 5,000 deaths reported (and it’s going to get a lot worse).

    What has changed and why the rush? This hasn’t been fully vetted.

    This experimental gene therapy has had more incidents reported against it in just 2 months than every vaccine for the 10-year period from 2008-2018.

    Ask yourself: What is so important to these people that they keep pushing it so aggressively?


  20. The CDC must answer several questions, starting with: (1) Why did they reverse themselves and the long-standing medical fact that masks are actually worthless against viruses? (2) In March 2020, why did they suddenly change the method of counting deaths by viral infection, totally at odds with 17 years of their previous rules, which created a death toll exaggerated by a factor of over 10? By their old rules, only 40K or so people died of COVID – a normal flu toll. (3) Why are they seeking to inject everyone, when only those over 70 have any serious risk of dying?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.